Risk Assessment Presentation

733 views

Published on

Presentation detailing the risks to pedestrians and cyclist in Monroe County on bike paths

1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Ox80072efd error can be resolved best with registry repair software and also it maintains health of system along with certain boost up in your system.
    http://www.0x80072efd.org
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
733
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Title Slide:
  • OutlineAssume 8th Grade Education
  • State Road 45 put in our GIS routes with hotspots
  • State Road 45 put in our GIS routes with hotspots
  • State Road 45 put in our GIS routes with hotspots
  • State Road 45 put in our GIS routes with hotspots
  • State Road 46
  • CardiovascularIncreased myocardial ischemiaPro-inflammatory mediatorsAtherosclerosisLeukocyte and platelet activationArrhythmiaIncreased risk of diabetes and hypertensionIncreased levels of CRPIncreased coagulabilityAltered rheologyCancerLung CancerLeukemiaPremature Death
  • Road CharacteristicsLane Width, Bike Lane, etc.Traffic and Bicycle VolumeMotor Vehicle Volume, Ped Volume, and Cyclist VolumeConfounding FactorsWeather, Commercial/Residential, Daily Changes in BehaviorDriver and Bicyclist ErrorFaulty bicycle mechanists
  • Risk Assessment Presentation

    1. 1. Bicyclist Health and Safety Issues on Four Alternative Transportation Routes<br />Monroe County Alternative Transportation Plan Risk Assessment<br />Craig Harper · ZeynepAltinay<br />Courtney Bonney ·Max Jie Cui<br />
    2. 2. Outline<br /><ul><li>Intro and Problem Formulation
    3. 3. Current Routes and Alternatives
    4. 4. Hazard ID</li></ul>Health <br />Safety<br />Health Effects<br />Exposure<br />Modeling<br />Risk Characterization<br />Causes of Accidents<br />Predictive Modeling<br /><ul><li>Uncertainty
    5. 5. Recommendations
    6. 6. Conclusion</li></li></ul><li>Introduction<br />Problem Overview: When sharing roads with vehicles, bicyclists are exposed to health and safety risks from exhaust and accidents<br />Key Question of Project: How would risks to bicyclists change on 4 priority routes with alternatives considered by Monroe County?<br />Goal: Inform the Monroe County Council of the relative risks to both health and safety from current and alternative routes.<br />
    7. 7. Target population<br />Current study:<br />Adult male<br />18-30 years old<br />70 kg weight<br />Cycling at a moderate pace (13 mph) <br />Asthmatic adult male<br />Future Studies:<br />Adult female<br />Elderly<br />Children<br />
    8. 8. Hazard ID<br />Criteria Pollutants<br />Sulfur Dioxide<br />Nitrogen Oxides<br />Particulate matter &lt; 2.5 µm<br />Hazardous Air Pollutants<br />VOCs (e.g. Benzene)<br />
    9. 9. Bicyclists’ Health and Safety: A Conceptual Site Model<br />Bicyclists share roads with vehicles<br />Road Characteristics<br />(type, lane width, shoulder, <br />sidewalk, signage, bike lanes, etc)<br />Pollutants emitted from vehicles Function of: fleet makeup, traffic volume, fuel composition, season<br />Driver and Bicyclists Error<br />Dispersal of Pollutants<br />Function of: wind velocity, mixing height, season, buffer width<br />Accident Rate<br />Traffic and Bicycle Volume <br />(vary spatially and temporally)<br />Inhalation of Pollutants <br />Function of: inhalation rate (varies with population)<br />Confounding Factors<br />Weather, distractions<br />Pollutant Dose<br />Function of: absorption<br />Endpoints: Predicted number of accidents on a given route (accidents/year)<br />Health Response (acute or chronic)<br />Endpoints: Risk to bicyclists from particular pollutants (mg/kg/day) over the course of 30 years<br />
    10. 10. Routes<br />
    11. 11. Route 1State Road 46<br />Commuter Route with a possible greenway option that would encourage recreational users<br />Vehicle Traffic Volume:<br />Current: 10704-19071 Avg: 15000<br />Alternative 1: 10700<br />Alternative 2: 4900-13000<br />
    12. 12. Route 2State Road 45<br />Recreational Route from Lake Lemon into Bloomington<br />Vehicle Traffic Volume:<br />Current: 3422-11491 Avg: 5225<br />Typical Multiuse Volumes: <br />
    13. 13. Route 33rd to Ivy Tech<br />Commuter Route to Ivy Tech<br />Vehicle Traffic Volume:<br />Current: 102 – 42803 Avg: 17100<br />Alternative 1:<br />Alternative 2:<br />
    14. 14. Route 4Fairfax Rd<br />Recreational Route from Clear Creek Trail head to Monroe Lake Beach and Four Winds Resort<br />Volume:<br />Current: 49-6860 Avg: 2270<br />
    15. 15. Options<br />
    16. 16. Health<br />
    17. 17. Exposure: Methods<br />EPA ‘s Mobile 6.2 Emissions Modeling Software<br />Estimates emissions (g/s or g/day)<br />Assumes average fleet makeup, traffic volumes, seasonal variations, fuel composition, average speed<br />http://elseware.univ-pau.fr/MAINPAGEPUB/carpollu/pol1.gif<br />
    18. 18. Dispersion Box Model<br />Concentration (C)<br />Where ,<br />The emission rate per unit area<br />Assumptions of the box model:<br />Concentrations are homogenous within the box.<br />Sources distribute uniformly.<br />Emitted pollutants instantaneously and uniformly mix.<br />A wind of constant speed flows across the cells cross-sectional area<br />(Schnelle and Dey, 2000)<br />
    19. 19. Calculation of Intakes<br />Where:<br />I ≡ intake (mg/kg bodyweight/day)<br />C ≡ chemical concentration (mg/s)<br />CR ≡ contact rate (m3/hr)<br />EFD ≡ exposure frequency and duration<br />EFD = EF*ED<br />EF ≡ exposure frequency (days/year)<br />ED ≡ exposure duration (years)<br />BW ≡ bodyweight; the average bodyweight over the exposure period (kg)<br />AT ≡ averaging time; time over which exposure is averaged (days)<br />
    20. 20. Combined Health Effects<br />Respiratory<br />Inflammation<br />Reduced Lung Function (FEV1/FVC)<br />Increased Upper Respiratory Infections<br />Bronchitis<br />Pneumonia<br />Allergic Reactions<br />Exacerbation of COPD, Asthma, and Emphysema<br />Central Nervous System<br />Headaches/Dizziness/Vomiting<br />Brain damage <br />asphyxiation<br />Stroke<br />Coma (VOCs)<br />Cardiovascular<br />Increased myocardial ischemia<br />Pro-inflammatory mediators<br />Atherosclerosis<br />Leukocyte and platelet activation<br />Arrhythmia<br />Increased risk of diabetes and hypertension<br />Cancer<br />Lung Cancer<br />Leukemia<br />Premature Death<br />
    21. 21. Non-Cancer<br />Reference dose=Threshold Dose/U.F.<br />U.F.s depend on the type of study<br />Large RfCs indicate weaker pollutants<br />
    22. 22. Cancer<br />VOCs (Benzene as an example) and PM have the ability to cause cancer<br />Risk measured as Unit Risk: risk per µg/m3 breathed<br />Benzene – Leukemia (EPA, 1998)<br />Unit Risk = 7.8E-03 (mg/m3)-1<br />Slope Factor = 2.73E-02 (mg/kg-day)<br />
    23. 23. Modeling Uncertainties<br />Calculated RfC from threshold doses <br />corrected for uncertainty (see table)<br />Utilized @Risk to run 5000 iterations <br />5 frequency durations ranging from 50-250 days <br />Used @Risk to place uncertainty values around:<br /> wind speed<br />mixing height<br />width of box<br />
    24. 24. Non-Cancer Output from @risk<br />Calculated a HQ with nested uncertainties for the longest route in 4 seasons<br />NOx: HQ&gt;1<br />All other pollutants HQ&lt;1<br />Relative Hazard Index, sum of the HQs, calculated for varying proposed alternatives<br />
    25. 25. Results: Non-Cancer<br />Using the Mean<br />
    26. 26. Results: Cancer<br />Benzene<br />Intake = 0.14 µg/m3<br />
    27. 27. Data gaps/uncertainty<br />Mobile 6.2<br /> default traffic volume assumption<br />no account of road dust<br />exposure from ingestion<br />mixing height assumptions<br />interactive effects of pollutants<br />
    28. 28. Safety<br />3 June 2008, US-Mexico Border<br />
    29. 29. Bicycle Accident Rates: Contributing Factors<br />Road Characteristics<br />Traffic and Bicycle Volume<br />Confounding Factors<br />Driver and Bicyclist Error<br />
    30. 30. Predictive Modeling of Accidents:Data Sources<br />
    31. 31. Assumption: Bicycle/pedestrian volume<br />Months of Cycling<br />Michael Steinhoff and Julie Harpring. (2008). Transportation and Sustainability on the Indiana University, Bloomington Campus.<br />
    32. 32. Variables for 2 Types of Model<br />
    33. 33. Model Type I – Bicycle <br />Y = − 0.00308 + 0.70576abm – 0.00513aps – 0.25012week + 0.00014143B2 + ut<br />R2= 16.36% F=17.5 P=0.0001<br /> <br />Y = Number of accident(s) on each day of 2008 <br />abm = Hourly Bike flow adjusted by month; t=7.07<br />aps = Hourly pedestrian flow adjusted by season; t=5.5<br />week = (Weekend=1, weekday=0); t=4.4<br />B2=Abm2 ; t=0.88<br />
    34. 34. Model Type II<br /> Y = 0.61697 +0.00005965TF +0.06912LW2 +0.19403BLW -0.84127Int <br /> -0.28712Curb -0.21508SD+ 0.34976 CR<br />R2=96.63% F =36.81 P=0.0001 <br />Y = # of Accidents on each selected road in 2008 <br />TF = Average Traffic Flow per day (2008) t=7.39<br />LW = Lane Width t=24.99<br />BLW = Bike Lane Width t=3.87<br />Intersection (INT) = (Yes=1, No=0) t=-3.55<br />Curb (CB) = (Yes=1, No=0) t=1.88 <br />Sidewalk (SD) = (Yes=1, No=0) t=1.45<br /> CR = (Commercial =1,Residential=0) t=2.27<br />
    35. 35. Limitations<br />Cannot account for human behavior<br />Mixed-Poisson Distribution Model<br />Data is very limited in this area. <br />Specification Error<br />
    36. 36. Next steps to improve accident modeling<br />Collect more data of risk characteristics on our primary routes (accidents!)<br />Adjust the model by adopting Mixed Poisson Distribution and take human behavior into consideration<br />Improve the assumptions by getting more official data<br />
    37. 37. Conclusions<br />Little evidence of serious risk due to air pollutants on current routes<br />Cannot make predictions of accidents on rural routes based on our model<br />Cannot make generalizations about effects of multi-use path with our model<br />Traffic calming measures (reduction of volume) seems to be more effective at reducing accidents than adding bike lanes<br />
    38. 38. Further Considerations<br />Value of increasing perceived safety<br />Produce a map of county bike routes with safety rating based on road characteristics to inform bicyclists of options<br />

    ×